jules77

Many have been saying they'd like to see a turbo 4 in the TLX.
I think we might very well get this as they have one in the new civic. While I would welcome the added horsepower to the base model.....I do have a few concerns:

we often forget turbos are thirsty suckers....often they drink more than the v6 counterpart.

reliability/oil burning......I bought my wife a 08 VW passat years ago and it had the 2.0t engine. While it drove nice and the engine had plenty of power, the engine burned oil like crazy, at least 1 quart per 1,000 miles. I had never owned a car that burned any oil. The dealer kept telling me this was normal after several service visits. I couldn't believe it! The exhaust pipes were black. Needless to say we traded the car in after only owning it two years....lost a ton of money. NEVER AGAIN WILL I OWN A VW!
I researched the engine and it was a common problem. I don't understand as they use this engine on many VW and Audi models. Many people I have talked to who owned this car said they burn oil and they would just add a quart every 1,000 miles. I guess you never need to change the oil LOL!

Saintor

I don't understand that attraction for 4-cyl. turbo. They basically suck and Honda's 3.5 DI V6 put the high HP ones to shame.

youngTL

Handling. You're taking some mass out of the front of the car. If they offer an Acura turbo, it'll be at least as well done as the one in the Civic, just with more power.

I'm REALLY hoping if they do it though, they don't go with a 2.0T. A little extra displacement would do the trick, like 2.2L turbo.

csmeance

Acura did turbo with the 1G RDX and they encountered a lot of teething issues. MPG wasn't as favorable as they hoped but the RDX was a blast to drive.

Most auto makers are leaning towards 2.X L turbo engines because they are more fuel efficient during steady driving but suck gas during acceleration IE city driving. Throw an electric motor in the mix and you've reduced the issue of MPG in city driving.

Wouldn't be surprised if honda/acura release a turbo 2.5-3.0L J-series in the future with VCM. 1.25-1.5L when cruising and full 3L potential during acceleration. As far as I know VCM is impossible in 4 cylinders due to the vibration.

TLX already gets 38MPG on the highway in 9th gear with VCM on with a 3.5L engine downsized to 1.75L. I'd imagine a cool 40+ MPG with the 1.5L

mrgold35

I think the future is leaning towards small displacement, force induction, 8/9/10AT, and some will add hybrid powertrains for fwd/awd to improve mpgs to +40 hwy. At the same time this will happen in 5-10 yrs, the avg price of vehicle will be around $40k-$45 and we will see +7 yr auto loans as options.

My 1st gen RDX get crappy mpgs; but, 20 mpg and no car payment is a lot better than 28 mpg and +$600 carpayment for a +16 Acura.

CybrRdr

We have a 2.0T in our Lexus, as 2.0T seems to be a popular displacement among competitors. I think Acura will eventually re-join them with another turbo 4.

Our 2.0T gets "okay" not great MPG and has some turbo lag. It struggle at a standing start until the turbo kicks in. Also many owners in the forum are overly concerned about the turbo cooling and will idle the car a minute or so before turning it off. And actually the owner manual recommends this as well. I never had a turbo car before and don't know if this is common for all turbo engines.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

^thats the point of a turbo!
great mileage before boost kicks in!
and power after boost kicks in!
best of both worlds!
although in the real world, people want a linear power curve

in the 90s people would add turbo timers to their cars. this would idle the turbo to keep the oil circulated after you shut off the car for a set amount of time

aIRpeACE

iTrader: (2)

yeah twin turbo with super charge

TacoBello

turbos are not necessarily thirsty suckers. it depends how much boost an engine is pushing. What also happens is you get way more torque down low, so driver's end up with a heavy foot because it's fun


reliability and oil burning may have been a concern for your VW. That's not the case for many cars. The wife drives a 2012 Sonata turbo and it burns zero oil and has not shown any issues over the close to 140,000km of driving.


yup, uninformed and completely biased to what he owns.. no one can own something better than him


again, lets do a quick compare:


2012 Accord V6:
271hp @ 6000 rpm
253 ftlbs @ 5000 rpm
20mpg City
30mpg Highway


2012 Sonata 2.0T:
274hp @ 6000 rpm
269 ftlbs @ 1750 rpm
24mpg City
35mpg Highway


Yeah, about that.... of course Saintor will say that real world numbers aren't nearly the same... right... go look at stock dyno numbers for each car... they're right where you'd expect them to be. Same with fuel consumption... of course it's impossible to hit the claimed numbers, but the sonata does burn less fuel than my J30 Accord V6 did. I'd be surprised if the 3.5L did any better.

Yes, the J35 in the TLX has a higher claimed fuel economy and power, but it's also newer... for some reason, Hyundai detuned their 2.0T for the new generation. But that's not to say there aren't other good choices out there. And if someone wants to mod their car... dumping money into an NA engine is a waste. You spend 1000s for minimal gains. On a turbo platform, you spend 1000s for huge gains.


The problem with the RDX was that Honda took a normal NA engine and slapped a turbo on it, rather than building an engine around a turbo. They essentially did it backwards, which ended up giving terrible fuel economy, etc.

TacoBello

Depends on the design, but turbo timers are largely unnecessarily these days. I'm surprised the Lexus manual states you should let the car idle for a bit before shutting it off. As Spaceman pointed out... that's old school.

CybrRdr

Yep I was surprised too when I read the US Owners Manual. Modern turbo engines shouldn't need cooling time before shutoff. Maybe the lawyers made them put it in there encase of a lawsuit. Toyota/Lexus seems to very sensitive to that.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I think Saintor was probably talking about actual performance figures.

2013 Accord
2013 Honda Accord Sedan V-6 Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
0-60mph: 5.6s
0-100mph: 13.9s
1/4 mile: 14.1@101mph
5-60mph: 5.9s
EPA: 21/34mpg

2011 Sonata 2.0T
2011 Hyundai Sonata SE 2.0T Test ? Long-Term Review ? Car and Driver
0-60mph: 6.1s
0-100mph: 14.5s
1/4 mile: 14.5@100mph
5-60mph: 6.5s
EPA: 22/33mpg

There's a sizable performance gap between the two cars as shown above.

J30 Accord is from like 2003-2007? Long time ago man...lol

The Sonata might make 269lbft at 1750rpm, but that's after it reaches full boost. Unfortunately, there's gonna be a slight delay for the turbo to spool up to reach that full boost. Of course, with modern day turbo engines, that time is a lot less now. But still, there's gonna be a delay.

Two of the main issues with the 1st gen RDX engine is that, it doesn't have direct injection, and Honda was extremely conservative with the tuning.

Without direct injection, the compression ratio is very low (think it's 8.8:1). That automatically translates to poor fuel economy.

And the conservative tuning makes things worse. And without boost, the 2.3L engine probably makes like 140hp or something. That means slow acceleration before boost is built.

dboz

Turbo cars are great for altitude. Great for tuning. I have no issue with a 4cylinder turbo. Owned several. All were great. They do lack the torque off the line though. Look at the GOLF R. 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. Evo X. WRX. Plenty of swift cars with small turbo engines. That said, they are not smooth, not refined, noisey and do use a lot of fuel if you are in boost often.

I did get really good MPG in my 2015 Forester XT though. Averaged around 25 MPG. Not bad for an AWD SUV with a 6.2 0-60.

My EVO X was much faster but I also had it modded. That car is just too rough and raw to compare to sedans like the TLX or ACCORD or KIA. Totally different animal.

The SANTA FE SPORT and the ECOBOOST are nice smooth 4 bangers that are relatively quiet with a turbo.

Had the TLX come with AWD in the 4 banger, I may have choosen that, but learned my lesson with the torque loss. No torque=boring drive IMO. Too slow and no grunt.

Saintor

Of course, let taco live in its little imaginary world. Real world numbers talk by themselves.

Nedmundo

Are you suggesting a twin turbo 3.0L V8 that shrinks to 1.5L with VCM? If so, I'm all for it!

More realistically, I expect a 2.0T in the TLX. It's now the standard for the segment, the Civic Si will be getting one, and Acura has said it's getting Honda's best engines. I recall reading the 8DCT can only handle 200 lb.-ft. of torque, so maybe it will be upgraded or changed to a 7DCT, because with the wide torque band the turbo won't need such narrowly spaced ratios.

I just hope the turbo preserves some classic high-rpm Honda character like my TSX's VTEC four.

youngTL

Why 2.0? Why specifically do you think it'll be that displacement instead of something like 2.4L? Also I don't think the uplevel engine will ever be an I4.

I could see something like turbo I4 for the base model and the uplevel models being a 3.0L turbo hybrid mix (turbo up front, twin motor electric unit in the rear for weight balance).

csmeance

I drove a 2014 BMW 328 for a few weeks and it's quick on it's feet, but the car doesn't have that instant kick in the butt that a normally aspirated engine has. Waiting for the turbo to spool is present, but not that long. All said and done, it went to 90 almost as quick at the TL but after that it just drops off like the TL too.

I know BMW uses electric cooling systems now that continue to cool the turbos after you shut the engine off! I'm surprised more auto makers aren't doing this...

Acura using a V6 makes more sense due to VCM. You get the power from the V6 + Turbo and also can use VCM to downsize it to an engine even smaller than a 4cyl. Plus a lot of older folks care about having more displacement vs a turbo engine.

In the perfect world, Acura would somehow engineer a 4.0L TTV6 that has VCM that'll be a lovely 3 2.0L or 4cyl 2.6L cylinder engine. Power and efficiency!

VCM on 4 cyl's isn't possible so I'd imagine they leave the TT V6 to the luxury division. At the end of the day Acura CEO or someone said that Acura would have unique powertrains that the Honda Brand won't get.

jules77

Most car companies going to turbo are doing 2.0 displacement....Mercedes, Audi/VW, Lexus, Volvo, Cadillac....

Here are some 2.0 turbo sedan fuel economy comparisons to the TLX 3.5 I put together from Car AND Driver data:

Mercedes C-Class 2.0t 4matic 7sp auto:
EPA city/highway: 24/31 mpg
C/D observed: 22 mpg
Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec

Cadillac ATS 2.0t AWD 8sp auto:
EPA city/highway: 22/28 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg
Zero to 60 mph: 6.3 sec (rwd)

BMW 3series 2.0t X-drive 8sp auto:
EPA city/highway: 22/34 mpg
C/D observed: 20 mpg
Zero to 60 mph: 5.3 sec

(2017) Audi A4 2.0t quattro 7sp auto:
EPA city/highway: 24/31 mpg
C/D observed: NA (24 est.)
Zero to 60 mph: NA on C&D

(2012) Audi A4 2.0t quattro 8sp auto:
EPA city/highway: 21/29 mpg
C/D observed: 20mpg
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec

Lexus IS250 2.0t AWD Fsport 8sp auto:
EPA city/highway driving: 22/33 mpg
C/D observed: 22 mpg
Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec

Volvo S60 drive E T6 2.0t FWD 8sp auto:
EPA city/highway driving: 24/36 mpg
C/D observed: 24 mpg
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec

Acura TLX SHawd v6 9sp auto:
EPA city/highway: 21/31 mpg
C/D observed: 24 mpg
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec

Rocket_man

In many European markets a car is taxed based on its engine displacement. That is probably a big reason 2.0 liter is so popular. Bigger = higher taxes.

mrgold35

This is hitting the nail right on the head. That 140hp is most likely at its peak without a turbo. At 1000-2000 rpms, the 1st Gen RDX might be lucky to be making 40-60 hp before the turbo kicks in. I would also add the 5AT and its unwillingness to downshift, drive line loss with sh-awd, and hauling around +4000lbs before spool are additional problems with the 1st gen RDX. I did Hondata+ETS intercooler and that quicken the spool time and added additional power. The only way I can get my RDX to behave like a V-6 is to tap the paddles to to get the rpms up to pre-spool before adding power. My mpg suck when I do this; but, the RDX feels like sports sedan with the turbo tq and sh-awd.

Honda/Acura seems to have their V-6s as solid as their I-4s. I've always thought they should stick with these and add superchargers as an dealer installed options. All cars would be sold as NA to help with mpg fleet numbers and owners can then install the S/C+reflash. My MDX 3.7L starts to run out of power when the elevation is at +6000 feet (makes more noise than speed). My RDX turbo still run like a bat out of hell even at 11,000 feet.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Haha, yes, the Hondata flashpro really helps with the lag. It was very bad on stock ECU, in the summer, with the AC on, and with 5 people in the car.

YoungTL, people think the TLX will get a 2.0T engine because, that's what Honda currently has available. Right now they have a 1.0T, 1.5T, and 2.0T. It would be nice if there's a 3.0T too.

way-acura

Just wanted to chime in here. I owned a 2005 3G TL for almost 10 years and 100,000+ miles. About two years ago I bought a 328i. In terms of performance, the 328 is much faster. In sport mode, it is easily about 1 sec faster 0-60 than my 2005 TL, and probably even more on the 1/4 mile. When you add a piggy back tune that difference gets even larger. My TL was modified too, with the standard mods, aftermarket j pipe, ported manifold from gerzand, manifold spacer, hfc's etc.

Mileage, though is a bit of a disappointment. On my 2005 TL, the adjusted EPA figures were very very close to what I got. I expected the same on the 328, but they are noticeably off. I would estimate about 2-3 mpg better than the 2005 TL, but 2-3 less than epa combined.

mikedub88

3.0T is coming.

mrgold35

I wonder if it is a response to Ininiti Q50 3.0t red sport with 300hp/295tq or 400hp/350tq and around $40k-$50k range? The red color alone would make me want to take it for a test drive.

Link: 2016 Infiniti Q50 Red Sport review and test drive with horsepower, price and photo gallery

silverTL6

iTrader: (2)

Speculation or inside source?

mikedub88

Inside source, I work for a tier 1 supplier.

CybrRdr

Even "if" a 3.0T is coming to Acura, I don't think that is a replacement for the venerable 2.4. If Acura plans to expand globally then it would make sense to have both a 2.0T and a 3.0T. But who knows... it's just speculation.

mikedub88

2.0T is coming too. The problem with the turbos is the issue of battery in the engine room. The turbo bits take up valuable space and extra heat is NG for the battery. This among other reasons is why the turbo engines will not be available for the TLX MMC (Sorry no Type S for MMC). I'm talking more as in they are coming for FMC.

CybrRdr

Makes sense... I personally wouldn't mind if they relocated the battery to the trunk.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Haha, the 328i does 0-60mph in 5.6s, and the TL 5AT does it in 6.5s...so..yaa..that's 1 second right there!

The extra low end grunt and 8AT really help the 328i from a standing start.

The 5AT in the TL saps a lot of power unfortunately...

You are probably not meeting EPA because you aren't driving slow enough in the 328i....

Oh wow! Thanks for sharing!! Are you saying that the 2.0T won't make it to the TLX for MMC? That's too bad then.

iutodd

It would help the weight balance. 40 lbs is 1% of the weight of the car after all.

I'll be very interested to see if the 3.0T rumor is true and how Acura uses it.

The 2.0T makes a strong case for itself as the "base" engine in the TLX and RDX especially with around 265 hp/265 lb-ft. Something like that would also work quite well in a higher performance ILX SHAWD.

A 3.0T obviously would make a hell of a good engine for the "Type-S" models of those cars with 320 hp/315 lb-ft or something - or higher - I actually think the 3.0L 325 hp version of the Sport Hybrid system works as a "middle tier" step up from a theoretical 2.0T though - then have a 380+ hp 3.0T Type-S on top.

The MDX/RLX are tricky - a 3.0T is almost too much engine for the base MDX at $45K and I don't know if the 2.0T will work image wise. The Q7 will have a base 2.0T though and I think it would do the job. The XC90 is also selling quite well with a 2.0L engine

Exciting stuff either way.

iutodd

Also - I wonder if the ILX gets turbos before the TLX. Or the RDX before the MDX.

mikedub88

Yeah it certainly helps keep the battery cool and improves the weight distribution as iutodd suggested. The complexity is in routing the large gauge supply line up to the engine room from the trunk. It is possible though, the Germans have done it.

mikedub88

Yeah it won't be here for MMC unless they decide to delay MMC. First 2.0T applications will be Civic SI and TYPE R.

alpha0

nexx on other thread was talking about Type S TLX 1 year after MMC (so during calendar year 2018). From product mgmt perspective, they should first put 3.0T engine in RLX replacement and then in TLX Type s. Also they will try to leverage powerful engine alongwith precision concept design (may be longitudinal mounting as well) rather than in TLX before FMC.

wlkeel

As have the Americans. Our Cadillac 2.0T ATS has the battery in the trunk, as did our non-tubo CTS before it.

jules77

that's a turbo for ya!

jules77

yes, that is a good point

StealthTL-S

It's official , the 3.0L turbo V6 DOHC will be in the new TLX , it is not a J Series engine. As well, a 2.0L turbo is coming as a base option engine in the TLX too

They Type S is returning with AWD and A-spec
Dates unknown...

FLYGUY31

Was this release somewhere? I wish we had dates as I would maybe hold off purchasing.